LH Gave away my suit coat and promised to reimburse-Now they won't...

Old Mar 3, 19, 8:16 am
  #16  
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Stoke on Trent, UK (MAN ), BUE, BKK, DBV
Programs: LH HON**,UA,BA.EK Gold,AV.
Posts: 3,619
Originally Posted by sophialite View Post
They offered to pay $270 for the jacket, which is apparently 50% of what he spent, so sounds like the jacket cost $540? LH/LX have reimbursed me far more for my luggage that they've damaged (we're talking about thousands here).

And frankly it shouldn't be a factor that the jacket cost what it cost. LH made a mistake, and they should make the passenger whole. If there was a limit regarding reimbursement, the crew should've communicated that limit clearly (like the credit card companies do on lost luggage insurance, etc.).

$500 is par for the course for a professional looking sport coat for an important meeting, if not on the lower side. I assume OP didn't have time to bargain hunt in the Bahrain Filine's Basement.
Exactly , totally wrong response from LH & completely unacceptable in this case
chris63 is offline  
Old Mar 3, 19, 1:50 pm
  #17  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: PVG, FRA, SEA, HEL
Programs: UA Premier Gold
Posts: 3,157
Every employee of LH is a representative, and if they say one thing, LH should stand by their word. And if the response is that the company is too large, that LH can't possibly manage what every employee says in this regard, that's their problem.
I'd assume the OP has got these assurances from some contract employees on the ground.

FWIW the ground staff in Bahrain were great upon arrival
warakorn is offline  
Old Mar 3, 19, 2:59 pm
  #18  
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: DUS (and somewhere in transit)
Programs: LH SEN, AB PLAT, BA Gold, Hilton Lifetime Diamond, SPG Lifetime Platinum, IHG RA, Hyatt Globalist
Posts: 9,953
Originally Posted by sophialite View Post
I didn't know there was fine print on this.

I think LH should still fully reimburse because of what the FA said to the passenger. Every employee of LH is a representative, and if they say one thing, LH should stand by their word. And if the response is that the company is too large, that LH can't possibly manage what every employee says in this regard, that's their problem. They need to train their employees better.
Every employee is a representative? Where do you take such wisdom from? Certainly not.
Flying Lawyer is offline  
Old Mar 3, 19, 3:02 pm
  #19  
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: London
Programs: LH HON
Posts: 749
Of course a lawyer would come back with that, lol. so useless
sophialite is offline  
Old Mar 3, 19, 3:02 pm
  #20  
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: DUS (and somewhere in transit)
Programs: LH SEN, AB PLAT, BA Gold, Hilton Lifetime Diamond, SPG Lifetime Platinum, IHG RA, Hyatt Globalist
Posts: 9,953
Originally Posted by chris63 View Post


Their standard policy is 50% if you keep the emergency items you purchased, excluding underwear, if you volunteer to return the emergency items IME they pay the claim in full.
For lost items it is 100 percent of the current value. And this is not the price of new item, but for the value of the lost item. Might make a difference or not. And we are not talking about delayed or,lost checked baggage but by a clear mistake of LH.
nancypants likes this.
Flying Lawyer is offline  
Old Mar 3, 19, 3:05 pm
  #21  
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: DUS (and somewhere in transit)
Programs: LH SEN, AB PLAT, BA Gold, Hilton Lifetime Diamond, SPG Lifetime Platinum, IHG RA, Hyatt Globalist
Posts: 9,953


Originally Posted by sophialite View Post
Of course a lawyer would come back with that, lol. so useless
Useless are fake news and clueless posts like yours. This does not bring anybody any step further.
nancypants and Lewis42 like this.
Flying Lawyer is offline  
Old Mar 3, 19, 8:12 pm
  #22  
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Stoke on Trent, UK (MAN ), BUE, BKK, DBV
Programs: LH HON**,UA,BA.EK Gold,AV.
Posts: 3,619
Originally Posted by Flying Lawyer View Post


For lost items it is 100 percent of the current value. And this is not the price of new item, but for the value of the lost item. Might make a difference or not. And we are not talking about delayed or,lost checked baggage but by a clear mistake of LH.
Yes.

In this case since it’s a mistake of LH the correct thing to do would be putting that fully right & paying up.
chris63 is offline  
Old Mar 4, 19, 12:38 am
  #23  
Marriott Contributor Badge
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: ZRH
Programs: LX, SK *G, FPC, GA/AG
Posts: 1,444
Originally Posted by Flying Lawyer View Post


Every employee is a representative? Where do you take such wisdom from? Certainly not.
As per Swiss law, a contract that has been done by an employee (and that is not absolutely unreasonable) on behalf of the firm stands. Obviously, if the employee has overstepped their power and like offered 100'000k on behalf of lufthansa there could probably be some reprocussisons (for the employee) and a reason to try and void the contract (because for the consumer on the receiving end this must have seemed very unreasonable). However, if for the consumer in this case, it was reasonable to believe the employee was well within their power to do such a contract court would probably side with the consumer and not void the contract. Principle of good faith...

(And yes I am aware that Swiss law is not applicable in this case but I don't happen to be fluent in all other countires laws but I'm quite certain there is a similar thing ing erman law)
Nick Art is offline  
Old Mar 4, 19, 1:26 am
  #24  
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: DUS (and somewhere in transit)
Programs: LH SEN, AB PLAT, BA Gold, Hilton Lifetime Diamond, SPG Lifetime Platinum, IHG RA, Hyatt Globalist
Posts: 9,953
Originally Posted by Nick Art View Post
As per Swiss law, a contract that has been done by an employee (and that is not absolutely unreasonable) on behalf of the firm stands)
This is fortunately not what the Schwizer Obligationenrecht says. If you were correct there would be no need for Prokuristen and Handlungsbevollmächtigte. A flight attendent has fortunately no what so ever statutory PoA under relevant German law (and only this is applicable if it comes to representation of a German Corporate) and very limited contractual PoA.
Flying Lawyer is offline  
Old Mar 4, 19, 1:51 am
  #25  
Marriott Contributor Badge
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: ZRH
Programs: LX, SK *G, FPC, GA/AG
Posts: 1,444
Originally Posted by Flying Lawyer View Post


This is fortunately not what the Schwizer Obligationenrecht says. If you were correct there would be no need for Prokuristen and Handlungsbevollmächtigte. A flight attendent has fortunately no what so ever statutory PoA under relevant German law (and only this is applicable if it comes to representation of a German Corporate) and very limited contractual PoA.
To clarify: I'm not talking about the normal "proffessional" business of making contracts (i.e. for example ordering airplanes) and I am quite aware that to make contracts of such magnituted you need a person with the rights of the firm to do so. I'm talking about the contracts a firm like Lufthansa makes with a consumer: Like an upgrade buy up where the MdC offers an upgrade for like 1000$ to a pax (which is a contract) or an agent at a check-in desk that or an agent at the gate doing the same or other things of which most interactions are contracts (i.e we pay you 250$ to take a later flight, this would certainly qualify as a contract).
The rule I was referring to goes into consumer protection, where a person makes a contract with an employee of a firm and the firm later decides to backtrack based on the explanation that said employee had no rights to make such a contract. As mentioned above it'd have to be a reasonable (for example the employee offers the consumer 250$ to take a later flight, the airline later decides to not pay out). In that case a court ruling would probably favor the consumer as he had no reason to believe the employee was overstepping in offering this.
As if an employee offers you to buy lufthansa group for 100$ it's probably fairly obvious that they are overstepping their boundaries...

I currently don't have time to search the file on which I am basing my argument on, but will do so later.


In the case of OP I'm not even sure the promise of reimbursement can be qualified as a contract.
Nick Art is offline  
Old Mar 4, 19, 2:19 am
  #26  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 250
Back to the more practical side.
Just say that you want 100% and you will send them the jacket.
In general LH will than give you 100% and does not want the jacket to be sent.
MultiFlyer is offline  
Old Mar 4, 19, 2:25 am
  #27  
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Stoke on Trent, UK (MAN ), BUE, BKK, DBV
Programs: LH HON**,UA,BA.EK Gold,AV.
Posts: 3,619
Originally Posted by MultiFlyer View Post
Back to the more practical side.
Just say that you want 100% and you will send them the jacket.
In general LH will than give you 100% and does not want the jacket to be sent.
Yes, that’s my experience but given what happened in this case they should just have been correct & paid the OP in full, wasn’t a fortune or an unreasonable claim.

And customer services don’t get that promises were made on behalf of the company
chris63 is offline  
Old Mar 4, 19, 7:14 am
  #28  
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: London
Programs: LH HON
Posts: 749
Originally Posted by Nick Art View Post
To clarify: I'm not talking about the normal "proffessional" business of making contracts (i.e. for example ordering airplanes) and I am quite aware that to make contracts of such magnituted you need a person with the rights of the firm to do so. I'm talking about the contracts a firm like Lufthansa makes with a consumer: Like an upgrade buy up where the MdC offers an upgrade for like 1000$ to a pax (which is a contract) or an agent at a check-in desk that or an agent at the gate doing the same or other things of which most interactions are contracts (i.e we pay you 250$ to take a later flight, this would certainly qualify as a contract).
The rule I was referring to goes into consumer protection, where a person makes a contract with an employee of a firm and the firm later decides to backtrack based on the explanation that said employee had no rights to make such a contract. As mentioned above it'd have to be a reasonable (for example the employee offers the consumer 250$ to take a later flight, the airline later decides to not pay out). In that case a court ruling would probably favor the consumer as he had no reason to believe the employee was overstepping in offering this.
As if an employee offers you to buy lufthansa group for 100$ it's probably fairly obvious that they are overstepping their boundaries...

I currently don't have time to search the file on which I am basing my argument on, but will do so later.


In the case of OP I'm not even sure the promise of reimbursement can be qualified as a contract.
Is it any surprise that Flying Lawyer made that argument? Yes, we all know “signor” of contract did not have “due authority.” This is the part where the client fires him for making a technically correct suggestion, but practically worthless.
sophialite is offline  
Old Mar 4, 19, 7:40 am
  #29  
Marriott Contributor Badge
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: ZRH
Programs: LX, SK *G, FPC, GA/AG
Posts: 1,444
I'm just saying that in contrary to what has been said, when an employee makes a contract with a consumer and with that overstepping his authority, this does not always automatically mean the contract is void. As always, it does depend on the situation...

And I don't think a lot of pax actually now what cabin crew members are allowed and not allowed to do regarding promising compensation etc...

But this is getting a little OT now.


OP, has the other passenger managed to returned your original jacket?
Nick Art is offline  
Old Mar 4, 19, 8:43 am
  #30  
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: London
Programs: LH HON
Posts: 749

I'm just saying that in contrary to what has been said, when an employee makes a contract with a consumer and with that overstepping his authority, this does not always automatically mean the contract is void. As always, it does depend on the situation...
This is exactly right. And agreed that this conversation isn’t necessary.
sophialite is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread